Standing Committee B

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Electoral Administration Bill

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election. )

Clause 19 - Review of polling places

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 19, page 18, line 36, at end insert
', except that such a notice may not be made in the period of three months before an eletion the date of which is prescribed.'. 
Following this morning's correction, and to avoid any confusion, the word in the second line, which reads ''eletion'', is not supposed to be ''deletion'', ''delectation'' or ''electrification'' but ''election''. That is what was intended. 
I have some general points to make about clause 19, which deals with the review of polling places, and a precise point, which is made by amendment No. 3, that it is not only inconvenient but inconsiderate to the electorate to make alterations to polling districts in the weeks immediately preceding an election whose date we know. 
We generally have our suspicions about when a general election is likely to be called, but it can be called at any time, so no statutory protection can be given before it is held. We do, however, know perfectly well when municipal elections, European elections and mayoral elections will be, as they are on a fixed term. The confusion inherent in a change to the polling district, and therefore to the polling station at which the electorate are required to attend to cast their votes, is not in interests of the electorate. The change might also affect the candidate, such as a sitting councillor seeking re-election whom they want to support in that election. All those confusions are inevitable if there is a change, but they are avoidable in the immediate run-up to an election. I hope that I have made a sensible suggestion that simply offers protection against such confusion and ensures that our elections are administered well.

Jonathan Djanogly: I have nothing to add to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, other than to say that what he said was thoroughly sensible.

David Cairns: In his preamble, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to some extent answered my objection to amendment No. 3, which is that part 4 relates to parliamentary  elections whose dates are not known. The amendment seeks to prevent the electoral registration officer from changing polling districts in the three months before an election, the date of which is known in advance. Clause 19, however, relates to parliamentary elections, the dates of which are generally not known three months in advance, so the amendment would not work.
I am sure, however, that we all have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. It would be very confusing to candidates, to party workers and others, but most of all to the electorate, if polling districts were changed willy nilly very close to an election. 
The alteration to the polling district will take effect only once the electoral registration officer has published a notice stating that he or she has made all the necessary adaptations. In practice, a registration officer would be bound to use his or her discretion in publishing such a notice when he or she knew that an election was pending. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is very obviously sounding a common-sense note when he talks about making such changes too late. Unfortunately, as I said, the amendment would not have the intended effect in part 4. With my assurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: I do not entirely agree that the amendment would not have the effect that the Under-Secretary suggests, because the polling districts are used not only for the parliamentary elections but for other elections. [Interruption.] They are not necessarily used for other elections, but they frequently are. There is coterminosity between the polling districts and the district council wards in England, for instance, so an amendment to one will produce a consequent amendment to the other. Although we are considering polling districts at parliamentary elections, there is a contingent consideration in relation to the fixed-term elections that take place within the same polling districts.
That can be dealt with by guidance to electoral registration officers. If the Minister would accept that principle—he is nodding from a sedentary position, so I believe that he does—perhaps he could issue clear guidance to electoral registration officers, in which case we do not need to pursue the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I wish to raise two points. First, I want to be clear what proposed new section 18B(5) means, because I have looked at it and construed it in various ways, and I still do not understand it, although I am not particularly stupid in such matters. Perhaps the Minister can help me.
''If no polling place is designated for a polling district the polling district is to be taken to be the polling place.''
What does it mean? Will we have one big polling station that covers the whole district? Can one cast a vote wherever one happens to be, in the street? I  honestly do not understand it, but I am sure that it means something, and the Minister will be able to help me, but at the moment I am struggling. 
The second point is more general. There is a degree of confusion in the terms. The word ''area'' means different things in different parts of the clause. That is not particularly helpful. On some occasions it is used to mean an electoral district, and on others it means something wider. In other instances, it appears to mean the building in which the polling takes place. If others are to construe what is proposed, it is not helpful for terms to change their meaning within a single section. I have not proposed an amendment at this stage; I simply put it to the Minister that he might like to consider whether the wording can be tightened a little, so that we are clear whether we are talking about a polling district, a building in which a polling station is situated or some other area. At present, the drafting looks slightly sloppy.

Jonathan Djanogly: I would like to draw attention to one aspect of polling districts that has not been addressed in the Bill, and in respect of which the Conservative Opposition proposed an amendment that was not selected—for all the right reasons, I am sure, Mr. O'Hara. We believe that fairness in the electoral system would be appropriately addressed at parliamentary polling district level. Votes in different parts of the UK have significantly divergent values because of the enormous variation in the sizes of constituencies. The current boundary commission review proposes constituencies of widely differing sizes—from Hackney, South at 57,000-odd to Banbury at 78,000 and the Isle of Wight at 103,000, with a general over-representation of urban areas. In the 2005 general election, across England the average electorate in seats that elected Labour MPs was 67,592, compared with 73,004 in Conservative seats. The average number of votes cast for the winning party in England was 18,833 in Labour, seats compared with 22,763 in Conservative seats.

David Heath: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the disparity between the size of seats. The Isle of Wight is a perennial problem, and I do not think that there is an easy answer. However, will he accept that Members of Parliament represent not only numbers of electors but numbers of citizens—souls—within their constituency, and that under-registration in many urban areas is a factor that has to be taken into account, as well as the number on the roll?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but if under-representation has to be taken into account, the disparity is arguably much greater than the figures that I give.

Chris Ruane: The figures that we have been given by the Electoral Commission suggest that under-representation involves between 3.5 million and 4 million people nationally, which equates to about 5,000 or 6,000 per constituency. Their backgrounds are low-paid, unemployed, in social housing, black and ethnic. There are far more of them in Labour seats than in Conservative seats. If the Bill is successful and we get those people back on the register, the skew will be ironed out.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am in no way arguing about the financial backgrounds of people who are entitled to vote; I am talking just about the numbers. As far as I know, everybody in the country has the right to vote, whatever their background. I will push on.
We believe that there is a strong case for ending the wide disparities in the size of parliamentary constituencies by introducing a fixed electoral quota, which would be devised, broadly, by dividing the electorate by the number of seats. That would allow for only a small margin of difference, to avoid splitting local government wards. Correspondingly, boundary commission regulations should be amended to ensure that maintaining an equal quota has the rule of priority over other considerations. The boundary commission chooses not to cross county boundaries, but it will cross London and unitary boundaries. That creates an urban bias in the system that makes rural constituencies much larger. 
There could also be a more up-to-date review of the size of electorates towards the end of the boundary review process, to avoid determining the size of constituencies on the basis of electoral data from the start of the review, which would subsequently become heavily out of date.

Chris Ruane: How will the new system affect seats in Wales that are traditionally and historically smaller, going back 300 or 400 years?

Jonathan Djanogly: The size of the seat, not the traditional boundary, would become the predominant factor, as is the case in London.
We believe that a fixed quota would be a fairer system, as it would ensure that each elector had the same level of parliamentary representation. Although there is a separate argument for reducing the number of MPs in the House of Commons, a fixed quota can be introduced while maintaining the existing size of the Commons. If there were a wish to provide additional representation for constituent parts of the UK, such as Wales and Scotland, that could be done transparently and explicitly by setting a lower electoral quota for constituencies in those designated parts of the United Kingdom. 
I raise this issue now with a view to returning to it on Report, because we believe that it deserves full and proper attention. Will the Minister comment on what progress is being made, and what proposals he may have to correct the inequalities?

Brian Binley: I support my hon. Friend's point about the size of the electorate. I represent the largest electorate in mainland Britain, I think—although the Isle of Wight, with more than 90,000 electors is bigger. It is a difficult task to service those electorates in terms of the social aspects of our work.
My concern is specifically about proposed new section 18B. Electoral registration officers sometimes do not get around to establishing some polling places until a general election is called, or they use an old list and find that it is redundant and they need to make replacements. That often happens. As a former agent,  I was often involved in discussions with electoral registration officers on the siting of polling places in such circumstances. The guidance notes that the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs referred to this morning may cover that point, but it would be helpful to discuss the matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who seems to be responsible for the Committee at present. Electoral registration officers used to hold negotiations and discussions with local parliamentary parties and political organisations on the siting of new polling stations. I wonder whether such guidance could be given, as the siting of polling places is a vital part of our democratic process.

John Pugh: I apologise in an even more grovelling fashion for arriving late, Mr. O'Hara. [Hon. Members: ''Again!''] You could say, ''Don't make a habit of it,'' but clearly I have.
In passing, may I comment on the previous comments about establishing constituencies strictly on the basis of arithmetical accuracy? That is an important criterion, but it should not be the sole criterion, as we would end up with some oddly shaped constituencies. For example, to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to represent an even bigger area in order to incorporate the relevant population numbers might be asking a little too much. However, that was not really what I wanted to bring to the attention of the Committee. 
New section 18D will allow for reviews of polling districts to take place by petition of 30 electors. They can go to the Electoral Commission and demand or appeal for that to be done. I am not clear about the criteria upon which such an appeal can be lodged. The presumption always seems to be that a petition, or some kind of appeal, can be made if it is transparently the case that polling places are inadequately distributed around the constituency because of, for example, a poorly functioning local authority. That is a fair understanding, but I also want to raise another issue about which I have some knowledge: inequity of access. 
Sefton borough, in which I live, is made up of an amalgam of different boroughs with different histories. In the Bootle constituency, which is in the southern part of the borough, there are almost twice as many polling stations as there are in my own constituency of Southport. The reasons for that are entirely historical; that is how it has always been. Perhaps there is some sociological argument to the effect that people in Southport could be expected to have cars and therefore to travel further, whereas in the past people in Bootle might not be expected to have their own transport. But things have moved on a little. For example, pensioners without their own transport in the northern part of the borough would be in exactly the same position as pensioners without their own transport in the southern part of the borough, but statistically, they always have to go further. 
If there is that kind of inequity in the provision of polling places and stations in constituencies served by the same electoral officer, are there grounds for  making a plea to the Electoral Commission? If there are, I would like to do that.

Edward O'Hara: Before I call the Minister, may I point out that some discussion in that short debate referred to amendment No. 44, on numbers of electors, which is outwith the scope of the clause? The Minister might wish to bear that in mind when responding.

David Cairns: I am very happy to bear that in mind, Mr. O'Hara. I had a well-prepared brief on the amendment of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). His amendment was not selected, but he made a speech anyway, and I admire his ingenuity in so doing. His case was effectively demolished in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, so I need not stray down that line. We have not yet discussed access for people with disabilities, which is a big issue. I shall deal with it shortly.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—which I now know rhymes with ''doom'', so I can pronounce it properly—asked a couple of questions about the wording, one of which was about the apparent dual use of the word ''area''. In proposed new section 18B(4)(a) it is, I think, reasonably clear that the area in question is the local authority area, because the provision sets out a duty of the authority. However, I undertake to scan the provisions thoroughly to make sure that they contain nothing confusing. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. 
As to the Delphic wording of proposed new section 18B(5), I double checked in my notes, which tell me: 
''New subsection (5) specifies that if there is no polling place allocated, then the polling district is to be the polling place.''
That sheds a huge amount of light on the matter. I must be even thicker than the hon. Gentleman. I have sought inspiration subsequently, but with each new wave of inspiration my comprehension has receded. I think that this will be the first occasion—I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State is not here to see it—on which I shall have to undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot undertake that he will understand my letter, but rather than attempt an explanation that would take us further into the realms of ignorance, it would be better to clarify the matter in that way. 
From what I understand from my notes, I think that the provision is about common-sense arrangements, to deal with peculiar circumstances in very rural and sparsely populated areas, or places where there are blocks of flats that might be whole polling districts—but I said that I would not go down that path. 
The hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke about entitlement to vote. Of course everyone is entitled to vote, but not everyone is registered to vote. That is in large part the point of the Bill. We want to ensure that a person who is entitled to vote is also registered. If, in some of the discussions on themes to which I shall not return, the hon. Gentleman bore that distinction in mind, it might have clarified for him why I would have recommended that the Committee reject his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly: Of course it is important to get people registered. However, is not it also important that once they are registered, their votes should not be worth less than other people's?

Edward O'Hara: Order. I must give a ruling: amendment No. 44 was not selected, because it was outwith the scope of the clause.

David Cairns: Thank you, Mr. O'Hara. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), one will not, under the Bill, need 30 electors to bring a formal complaint. Anyone can bring a complaint and raise the relevant issues. If there is inequity of access, as the hon. Gentleman says, the solution must be decided locally, by those with local knowledge. The clause allows for a much more open discussion and dialogue between individuals with a point to make and the returning officers who make the decisions.
We want to make the process more transparent, so that it is easier for people to intervene on the issue that I shall now discuss—access to polling stations—and on the broader access issue of where people live. Clearly, if many people once lived in a certain part of town in high-rise flats, but those were later knocked down and no one lives there now, it is daft to persevere with having a polling station there. A systematic review of such matters, to which anyone could contribute, would be an improvement.

John Pugh: Hypothetically, if the issue were discussed at local level but the outcome was seen as inappropriate or contestable by a community that felt badly treated because it did not have the right number of polling stations for its population—if those facts were stated plainly, but there was no agreement—could an appeal be made to the Electoral Commission?

David Cairns: The straightforward answer is that I do not know. I hope to return to the subject later.
We are trying to ensure that people have the chance to put their case and have their questions are answered. Paragraph 7 of proposed new schedule 1A to the 1983 Act states: 
''On completion of a review the authority must . . . give reasons for its decisions in the review''.
It also has to 
''publish such other information as is prescribed.''
I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating or ameliorating the situation.

Brian Binley: Will the Minister respond to a point that I raised earlier? When organising elections, there is often no time to review election law, as such considerations arise too late in the process. I asked whether the Minister would use the guidance notes to allow electoral registration officers to do what they used to do, and have urgent discussions with local political parties over the siting of polling stations if necessary immediately prior to an election.

David Cairns: Paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 1A states:
''Representations made by any person in connection with a review of polling places may include proposals for specified alternative polling places.''
It is clear that ''any person'' will include political parties. We are opening up the process beyond political parties. We do not use the words ''political parties''. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. 
Mr. Binley rose—

David Cairns: We are making heavy weather of what I think is a fairly straightforward point.

Brian Binley: It is not.

David Cairns: I think it is. I shall give way for the last time.

Brian Binley: I thank the Minister for giving way, but this is not a point of little interest. What I described happens regularly. I was an election agent for 12 years—I was proud of the fact—and I remember that we often needed to find a polling station in a rush. In a good area, the electoral registration officer would do that in consultation with the political parties, but it did not happen in areas where practice was not as good as it ought to be. I seek guidance for electoral registration officers, so that they can pursue such a policy. Good geographical access to a polling station is a vital part of the democratic process.

David Cairns: I can do no more than draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Bill says that individuals are allowed to make representations. He is talking about emergencies, so I assume that he is talking about by-elections.

Brian Binley: No, no.

David Cairns: I cannot understand why an election should be treated as an emergency. Perhaps that is why we disagree. There is a clear, transparent process. We set out in detail how consultation should take place. Representations can be made by ''any person''; we do not have to rely on the artificial trigger of 30 people complaining about something before it is taken seriously. The results of such reviews have to be published.
Another issue that came up on Second Reading was access for disabled persons. We are allowing representations to be made by anyone who has sufficient interest in the accessibility of polling places in the area to disabled persons, or has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for disabled persons, including disability groups. The disability group does not have to be in the local authority area or polling district in order to make representations. It could make representations from a central standpoint. 
All polling places and stations should be accessible to all voters. However, the service providers, including public authorities such as councils, do not think that the duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which from 1 October 2004 imposed a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the physical features of buildings if disabled people would otherwise find it impossible or unreasonably difficult to make use of services, apply to electoral services. That revision of current legislation reinforces the duty of local authorities to consider people with disabilities. The Bill sets it out in clear English. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Minimum age

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 20, page 22, line 5, leave out 'nominated as a candidate' and insert 'elected'.
We do not often have the privilege of amending an Act from 1695; it is a welcome departure. To add to the gravitas of the situation, we are also amending the Union with Scotland Act 1706, so these are momentous matters. 
I seek to add a degree of consistency. There is no doubt about this matter in the Bill, which states: 
''A person is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons if, on the day on which he is nominated as a candidate, he has not attained the age of 18.''
That is admirably clear, and everyone understands it. It is a change from the 1695 provision, but that is not unreasonable as times have changed. The relevant section in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 is entitled 
''Infants not to be elected.''
Few people nowadays would describe a 20-year-old as an infant, but that was the appropriate description in 1695. I shall not attempt to reflect in my speech the spelling of the 1695 Act. It says that 
''noe person hereafter shall bee capable of being elected a member to serve in this or any future Parliament who is not of the age of one and twenty yeares and every election or returne of any person under that age is hereby declared to bee null and void And if any such minor hereafter chosen shall presume to sitt or vote in Parliament hee shall incurr such penalties and forfeitures as if hee had presumed to sitt and vote in Parliament without being chosen or returned.''
The relevant wording of the Union with Scotland Act 1706— 
''none shall be capable to elect or be elected''—
shows that the moment of election is the relevant time. That is also the test in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. As I read it, holding an office of profit under the Crown or a position on the list of disqualifying positions—positions that prevent one from serving as a Member of Parliament—stops one not from being nominated but from assuming the position of a Member of Parliament. Such legislation stops one taking one's seat in the House.

James McGovern: Under the hon. Gentleman's formulation, would anyone of any age be able to stand as a candidate and simply be unable to take their seat if they were successful?

David Heath: Strictly speaking, that is the state of the law. I have just read out part of the 1695 Act, which is the current state of the law. It clearly says that someone may not be elected unless they have reached ''one and twenty yeares''. Currently, one has to be 21 to be a Member of Parliament, but the Government propose that that age should be 18. All we are considering is the date on which that applies, but the date is construed differently for different elections. There was a dispute in the European parliamentary  elections about whether the nomination of a candidate whose 18th birthday fell between the point of nomination and the point of election was valid.
Different rules apply to different elections in what we expect to be a common electoral process. My question is simply this: does the Under-Secretary agree that it would be better to decide what the relevant date for these purposes will be and better for the date to be consistent throughout legislation and across elections? It is not consistent at the moment, so will the Under-Secretary explain why not?

Jonathan Djanogly: We welcome clause 20, which reduces from 21 to 18 the age qualification for membership of the House of Commons, for membership of a local authority and for election as mayor or assembly member of the Greater London Authority. The clause will require that the candidate is 18 on the day of nomination, or 18 on the day of the poll in the case of a local authority election or an election to the GLA when the election is not preceded by nominations. In a democratic system, it is only fair that all who are eligible to vote are also eligible for election.
The amendment seeks to change the qualifying time so that the candidate must be 18 by the day of election rather than by the day of nomination. Apart from the fact that the amendment seems to be a keen attempt to grab a few more weeks for 17-year-olds, will the Under-Secretary say whether it would pose any mechanical problems in the event of the election date not being fixed?

David Cairns: I rise to speak knowing that I have rather more knowledge of House of Commons disqualification than do most hon. Members, having been the victim of one such disqualification that required primary legislation in the rather anxious weeks before the 2001 election before I could stand.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly highlights several discrepancies. Some disqualifications allow one to stand for election but do not allow one to take up one's seat. The ones that debarred me were precisely those; they were statutes relating to membership of the House of Commons, which presupposed that people did not have to stand for elections. Subsequent electoral law never took that into consideration, so it was perfectly valid for me to stand for election and to be elected, but I could not have taken up my seat. That, however, is not the precise issue that we are debating. 
I echo the objection expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) when I say that we do not want someone who is 14 when nominated and at the time of the election having to wait until they are 18 before they can take their seat. After all, there is no axiomatic link between someone being elected and taking their seat. It would be perfectly possible for Sinn Fein Members who were elected months ago to take their seats at any time, so we must be careful about legislating when such gaps exist. 
The Bill is trying to do precisely what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has asked us to, which is to harmonise and standardise the arrangements. The arrangements, as they apply to  local and GLA elections, already make it clear that candidates must have reached the minimum age by the time when they are nominated. Clause 20 clarifies the fact that the age disqualification is linked to the day on which the candidates are nominated at parliamentary elections. 
One can pick either the day of nomination or the day of the election because the day of nomination is 11 days before the day of election. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, because one will know the day of the election by the day of nomination. The matter is therefore not technically difficult. It is simply a question of which day one picks. I am attracted to the idea that we would maximise the ability of someone to stand at election if, during those 11 days, the candidate had a birthday and would otherwise be debarred if they turned 18 between the day of nomination and the day of the election, but if the amendment were adopted, we would end up with a discrepancy between the law as it applies to Westminster and the law as it applies to the GLA and local elections. 
There are other issues relating to non-contested elections, in which the day of nomination is in effect the day on which the person is elected. Overall, we are trying to do what the hon. Gentleman wants us to, which is to standardise the arrangements. The Bill makes a change from the historical precedent, but we are standardising towards the status quo for the GLA and local elections. I think that his overriding aim is for clarity and standardisation and hope that with that reassurance he will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: I am grateful. I have been misinformed because I was advised that the qualifying date for local elections was the date of taking one's seat rather than of nomination. The Minister clearly has better advice, and I applaud his desire to standardise. I have a gentle suggestion: he might, given his experiences, consider amending the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to bring it in line, so that it is clear that the relevant date for disqualification is the point of nomination.
I was not in the same position as the Minister, because, as he says, he had to have a change of primary legislation to allow him to stand successfully for election to the House. However, I was a member of the Audit Commission prior to my election in 1997, and I had to stand down because that was an office of profit under the Crown and part of the list of disqualifying posts. That gave me some nervousness about whether I was getting my resignation in at the right time and whether it would be accepted by the commission, or by the Secretary of State who controls it, so as not to provide any bar to my being elected as a Member of the House. 
Simply bringing everything into line would be desirable. That is clearly what the Minister has in mind, and I ask him to consider whether a subsequent amendment might be in order to the measure that he so fondly remembers to make sure that everything is pointing in the same direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Nomination procedures

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 22, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
'(7A) In rule 7 (subscription of nomination paper), in paragraph (1), for the word ''eight'' substitute ''one hundred''.'. 
This is a probing amendment. It relates to perhaps one of the more controversial elements of the Bill, controversial not least with the Minister's hon. Friends—the reduction in the deposit required for parliamentary elections. A robust argument about that took place on Second Reading, because a significant number of hon. Members on both sides of the House wondered whether it was sensible or would open the door to more fringe and extreme candidates. It is an area in which we must balance concerns about the barriers to participating in the electoral process that might be put in the way of smaller parties against our wish to ensure that the electoral process is not trivialised, exploited or made to produce perverse results, through the prominence of parties that operate undemocratically. 
The Government appeared on Second Reading to be a little lukewarm about their own proposals. It seemed to me that they were not entirely convinced about their proposal to reduce the deposit. I tabled the amendment as an alternative way to achieve some of the objectives of those who objected to the reduction in deposit—by increasing the number of subscribers. That would at least have the benefit of providing that, with a smaller financial requirement, candidates should be able to give a more obvious demonstration of electoral support in the constituency, by providing an increased number of assenters. 
There is a perfectly respectable argument for the proposal in my amendment. Although the Electoral Commission does not support it. It does not believe that the number of assenters is a sensible determinant. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I wanted to offer the opportunity to consider it. I am, at best, agnostic about the Government's proposal to reduce the deposit, although I do not believe that financial constraints are the right way to discourage fringe candidates, as they also entail the disadvantage of discouraging small parties from participating in elections. I am, I hope, a good democrat. Plurality is better than monopoly in such matters. 
Nevertheless, there are arguments to suggest checks and balances. My amendment would be one way of dealing with the matter. I should like the Minister's comments, during which he may say that he is not inclined to pursue the reduction in deposits in any case. A significant number of hon. Members of all parties would be relieved about that and would feel that the Government were taking the right approach. I am satisfied to wait for the Minister's response.

Jonathan Djanogly: The amendment would increase to 100 the number of people subscribing to a nomination  paper from the current provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983. It would require candidates to obtain 102 subscribers, including a proposer and seconder, to validate their nomination, rather than 10, including a proposer and seconder, which is the current requirement.
We note, as did the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, that the Electoral Commission does not support the amendment. The commission recommended two options to improve the deposit and subscriber system in its 2003 report ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom''. Both options recommended the abolition of the current subscriber system, following extensive review and consultation. We are in favour of maintaining deposits as a barrier to nomination in elections. We shall discuss that later. The greater the number of subscribers required at the point of nomination, the greater the barriers to participation in the democratic process and we must be careful to maintain the correct balance. 
The amendment goes too far. Where candidates seek to represent, and have been selected by, registered political parties, the additional requirement to provide a list of subscribers is particularly unnecessary. Obtaining 100 signatures on a nomination form would be a time-consuming operation and for some candidates potentially very difficult or even impossible. The requirement to obtain signatures does not represent a true test of electoral support, and acquiring signatures is arguably more a test of administrative competency than of electoral support. In addition, requiring a substantial number of subscribers can significantly increase the administrative burden on returning officers as they have to verify all signatures for each candidate. 
It also seems unlikely that the 100 signatures would prove a genuine barrier to extremist groups. Indeed, extremist groups would often be the most able to rely on a small but sufficient number of dedicated supporters to meet such a requirement. Equally, it seems unfair to genuine, mainstream candidates who may not be well resourced—some of them may have few active local supporters to count on and yet may still gain large numbers of votes—to force them to spend time collecting these signatures rather than allowing them to devote all their efforts to the real democratic business of an election, meeting and persuading those who are not already their supporters. Given the existing deposit rules, which we support, the extra burden would be unnecessary and probably ineffective.

Brian Binley: Ten candidates stood in my constituency when I was elected. I am a little concerned about this matter but I am not sure that the amendment would solve the problem.

David Heath: I am not, either.

Brian Binley: No, I didn't think you were. It seems to me there is a balance between protecting a democratic right and allowing genuine candidates to take part irrespective of the size of the support for the position they represent, and protecting the democratic process  from those who wish to use the election for their own rather spurious ends. I cite a case in the election before last in Northampton, where a candidate sponsored by the Daily Star ripped off her plastic nurse's uniform at the count and whose photograph appeared in that paper.

Chris Ruane: Dreadful.

Brian Binley: You say dreadful—

Harriet Harman: It is dreadful.

Brian Binley: It was not very pleasant at 3 o'clock in the morning, but my point is that we all want to protect the democratic process from that sort of activity so we must strike a balance between the need to open up democracy and the need to protect it. We need to give more thought to the matter.

Edward O'Hara: At my first election, Screaming Lord Sutch and Miss Whiplash were candidates.

David Cairns: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was quite candid in introducing the amendment. Essentially, he said that there was a possible quid pro quo, but as he was not sure whether we would do the pro quo he was not certain how robust the quid would be. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I shall listen carefully to the debate on the next amendment to see whether it is as robust as it was on Second Reading. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House clearly stated, with great vociferousness, that people did not want the threshold at which deposits were lost to be reduced from 5 to 2 per cent.
Given that the hon. Gentleman is allowing the debate on this amendment to be a possible exploration of the following amendment, I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon dealt with the case very well. There are practical issues involved but they are not insurmountable. It is not beyond the wit of an intelligent election agent to manage such things, nor is it beyond the wit of a good ERO to check them, but it is another burden and it adds to bureaucracy when we want to remove it. However, as I said, the problems are not insurmountable and if we were wedded to the principle they would not, in themselves, be sufficient to deter us. 
I like the second argument made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the true test of whether someone has local support is whether they get votes. Of course, that can only be gauged after the ballot, but the amendment would insert an additional, slightly artificial hurdle before the ballot, testing whether an individual has local support. The test of whether an individual has local support should come on polling day. I think that is the principle that the hon. Gentleman was outlining. 
I have noticed in the Committee that the Electoral Commission is often prayed in aid of whichever side happens to agree with it on an issue. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome who said that the commission did not agree with the proposal. Indeed, it wants to go in completely the opposite direction and do away with the system altogether. That is the position for election to Scottish Parliament:  there is a self-nominating procedure in which no assenters or subscribers are required. I understand that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are entirely happy with that system. 
We are keeping the situation that we have had in this country for a long time, in which there is some sense of one having to do a bit of work rather than just sitting in London or wherever, and declaring one's self to be a candidate all over the place, in every constituency, without making any effort. We balance that against the two factors that I mentioned: the practicalities, which could be overcome, and the principle, which may not be the biggest principle in the world. Taken together they mean that the case presented by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is not strong enough for us to move to the position that he outlined. I entirely accept the spirit in which he moved the amendment: as a probing amendment to open the debate—perhaps in advance of the discussion that we are about to have on the next amendment.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for the level-headed way in which he responded. In my defence, I must say that I was not to know when I tabled the amendment that there would be a subsequent amendment and, therefore, debate. I simply felt that the matter could properly be put before the Committee so that we could debate something about which people are concerned.
Personally, I take an agnostic view on the threshold. I am willing to be persuaded either way, but simply am not convinced that reducing the threshold is the right way forward. Neither am I convinced that putting a financial barrier—that is what it effectively is—to standing for election is the right way to do things, especially considering that the amount of the deposit is insufficient to deter those for whom the main purpose of standing is to engender publicity or commercial benefit, but enough to deter some small parties which would struggle to meet the requirement.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Gentleman anticipates the next debate.

David Heath: I must be careful not to do so, Mr. O'Hara, but you must appreciate that there is a clear link between the two. My proposal is an alternative to the current position on the deposit threshold and the Government wish to reduce it. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that he was worried that getting 100 signatures would be a terrific barrier to those parties which are not well funded. Obviously, he thinks it would be quite easy for poorly resourced parties to secure £500, whereas getting 100 signatures would be much more difficult for them. I am not sure that I entirely agree with him, but I must not pre-empt the next debate.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course, we always look carefully at what our colleagues north of the border do on these matters. They are normally entirely right, I am sure, with the solutions that they come up with in conjunction with their coalition partners in the Scottish Executive. 
My last point is that I made it very plain that the Electoral Commission did not support it, because the  Electoral Commission is the one firm rock that we have to cling to in cases of dispute. It provides a useful form of arbitration, so I do not claim its support when it is not given but make it plain where we are at variance with its opinion. That is something that the Committee should use as its touchstone throughout these considerations. Where there is doubt, I will tend to support the view of the Electoral Commission because it was set up precisely to give advice. That is a sensible way forward and something that was not followed by some of the Minister's predecessors in previous legislation—to their cost and that of the electoral system. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jonathan Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in clause 22, page 24, line 33, leave out section (9).
Subsection (9) amends rule 53 of schedule 1 to the 1983 Act, which deals with parliamentary election rules, reducing the proportion of votes that a candidate at a parliamentary election has to poll in order not to forfeit his deposit. Currently he has to poll 5 per cent.—one-twentieth—of the votes cast; the subsection lowers that to 2 per cent., or one fiftieth. 
Deposits for Westminster parliamentary elections were introduced in the Representation of the People Act 1918 following a number of candidatures that were regarded as frivolous. There was no full parliamentary debate on that aspect of the legislation because all the main parties represented at the time supported the initiative. The 1918 legislation allowed election costs to be met for the first time by central Government. Previously, candidates had met costs collectively, so the deposit acted as a safeguard against candidacies that had no realistic chance of success but which nevertheless added to the complexity of the process. The requirement for deposits and subscribers has therefore been in force since 1918 for all elections in the UK except for local government, parish and community council elections. 
The threshold set by the 1918 Act was put at one eighth of votes cast. In 1982, the Select Committee on Home Affairs Committee conducted an inquiry into electoral law, which concluded that the deposit should be raised to the more realistic level of £1,000. However, the Committee had difficulty in agreeing a threshold for forfeiture. Legislation followed in the Representation of the People Act 1985 and the deposit was increased to £500 with the threshold reduced to one twentieth, or 5 per cent. A Home Affairs Committee inquiry in 1997–98 recommended increasing the level to £700, with indexation to follow after the next general election. However, that was not accepted by the Government. 
My point is that all previous moves have been to make the threshold higher. Suddenly, with this Bill, the position is being reversed, and we are extremely concerned that reducing the threshold will give a major boost to extremist parties such as the British National party, which benefit from the freepost electoral addresses and election broadcasts. As members of the committee know, all candidates in  parliamentary elections receive a freepost mailing to each elector. That is worth some £10,000 to £15,000 in free postage. 
In addition, parties can be eligible for party election broadcasts on television and radio. In fact, BBC rules allow a party election broadcast across Great Britain if a party nominates in one sixth of all British seats. Ofcom rules for commercial television state that in order to qualify, parties must contest one sixth or more of the seats up for election, with the four nations of the UK considered separately. If candidates are nominated in one or two constituent parts of Britain, their parties will be offered broadcasts on ITV in the appropriate nations. Parties qualifying in all three nations are also offered Channels 4 and Five as well as national commercial radio. One sixth of the seats in England are currently equivalent to 88 constituencies. 
To illustrate the point, in the 2005 general election, lowering the threshold to 2 per cent. would have saved the BNP £36,500, equivalent to allowing it to nominate candidates in a further 73 constituencies. The 5 per cent. threshold is there to deter frivolous and extreme candidates who might otherwise use elections as a form of self-promotion. If these provisions had been in place at the last election, the major parties would not have been significantly affected by the change. The principal beneficiaries would have been parties such as the BNP who do not command popular support and should not be encouraged to peddle their propaganda. 
A further problem with the subsection is that a 2 per cent. threshold would be inconsistent with the 5 per cent. minimum share of the vote necessary to gain representation, which is in use in the additional members system of proportional representation in Britain. At a time of growing concern about the rise of extremist parties, it somewhat beggars belief that the Labour party wants to lower the hurdles for the far left and the far right to receive freepost mailings and election broadcasts in parliamentary elections. 
In our free democracy, allowing extremists to run for election is a necessary evil, but checks and balances should exist to prevent the system of free mailings and broadcasts from being abused. That is exactly what the threshold of 5 per cent. does. Lowering the threshold will help the likes of the BNP spread its propaganda courtesy of the taxpayer, despite the fact that its views do not carry mass public support. 
Notwithstanding what I have said in relation to lowering the threshold and to deposits, we welcome the provision in subsection (5) to allow candidates to pay their deposits by credit or debit card.

Barbara Keeley: I do not believe that the threshold for returning and losing deposits should be lowered from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. It is strange that the Electoral Commission has suggested it. The aim is to encourage the participation of candidates, and that is desirable, but the provision sends out the wrong message, and, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, it may have some perverse and unwanted effects. 
The provision would encourage frivolous candidates, of whom we have heard an example. We must take account of the fact that a parliamentary election entails free post, which can have considerable commercial value. It also entails television and media publicity and publicity at the count. It is a substantial attraction and benefit to single-issue candidates, extreme candidates and frivolous candidates with a self-promoting, commercial interest. 
We must take those factors into account because an increasing number of frivolous, self-promoting and commercial candidates at elections helps to contribute to the apathy and distrust that we want to resist. In this Bill we are working to get rid of that, and unfortunately every time a number of people at elections contest for frivolous or self-promoting reasons, it says to the electorate that the candidates are not taking their candidacy seriously. We should work in the opposite direction and try to ensure that only serious candidates stand. 
The overriding reason why we should resist the Electoral Commission's proposal is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the undesirable effect it will have of encouraging extremist and undemocratic parties. At the last local elections, the BNP stood in many more local authorities—certainly in the north-west—and in many more wards in those local authorities. In those circumstances, it is just a question of getting people to subscribe and put forward their names. I should not want to encourage such parties any further, and if the deposit and its loss are barriers to them, we should keep those barriers. That is a strong reason. We do not want more BNP candidates having their odious message delivered to more households. The Bill is not right on this point. It has come about for a good reason but would have perverse effects.

John Pugh: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and myself are the only people who are familiar with the Liberal glee club at the end of every party conference. There used to be a song called ''Losing Deposits'', which was set to the tune of ''Waltzing Matilda'', sung with sad irony by many members at one stage. It seems far less relevant these days, but I guess I might declare an interest.
We agree on the objectives of the system of deposits and forfeiture. The objectives are clear: to encourage serious candidates; to discourage extremists and frivolity; and to ensure that the electoral process does not unduly subsidise those people who have no representation nor support. What is at issue is not the system but whether the way in which the system is pitched in terms of percentages and the size of the deposit will do just that. I get the sense from everybody who has spoken so far that we have some disagreement with the Electoral Commission on this and do not think the system that it is recommending will have the beneficial effects that I am sure it would endorse. We do not have clear evidence that it necessarily agrees with our objectives. However, if our objectives are to discourage extremist candidates from participating, to discourage frivolity and to encourage serious candidates who stand a realistic chance of winning, while not making the process  onerous or giving a subsidy to people who are standing for some vexatious purpose, we must consider what is in the Bill and support an amendment such as this one.

James McGovern: I totally understand why there is so much opposition to reducing the level at which the deposit is forfeited. The British National party and other right-wing groups have used elections to spread hate, bigotry and distrust in the communities in which they operate. They exploit the fears and insecurities of those who feel that they have had a raw deal from society and allow the prejudices of a racist few to infiltrate other sections of our society. I am firmly against the BNP, but it is right to let the party stand in elections. More than that, I believe that it is a fundamental right of any party in society to stand up and speak for the people it feels it represents.
The BNP may be despicable, but it represents a group of people who feel disenfranchised. Often people vote for the BNP and other right-wing groups because they feel that they have had a raw deal from society. What greater challenge is there to us as democrats than a party exploiting disillusionment? We should be engaging with such people, not removing them from the political process. This country has laws that prevent groups such as the BNP from inciting racism or provoking violence. During a previous election—in 2001, I believe—the BNP's advertising was banned from the TV airwaves because it was so offensive. That was entirely right and proper. 
However, if a party follows the rules of a democracy and seeks to gain people's votes, why should it not play the game? I say to those who seek to limit the BNP simply through increasing the level at which it can claim its deposit that, if we do not think it should fight elections, we should ban it totally, add it to the proscribed list and be done with it. If we think that it deserves to have a say in the greater scheme of things, we must let it participate fully. Unfortunately, that means allowing it to have its deposit back if it attracts any degree of support. 
The BNP dominates this debate, but it should not. The path of democracy does not run smooth—that much is obvious from the party's success—but many other people attempt to find a role in the political process and find their way somehow blocked. We should lower the threshold, as pluralism is vital to the good operation of democracy. If we encourage people to stand in elections, we encourage them to put their issues, topics and concerns on the agenda. We encourage important debates that involve, for example, protests against a school closure, or a community who feels it is getting a raw deal from the Government and wants a local non-party representative, or a group of people who want to raise a specific issue. Such people are vital to us as politicians and to the political discourse of this country. 
A party called the Publican party stood at the last election in Inverness. Its main issue was a belief that people should be able to smoke in pubs. It was incredibly unsuccessful—in fact, I believe that it would have lost its deposit even with the 2 per cent. boundary—but the panel had to address the smoking  issue at every hustings in the constituency. A group of publicans put their issue high on the agenda. 
I understand that there are many ways to get an issue addressed at election time, but it should not be the job of MPs to remove any of those methods. If people care enough about an issue, a political ideology or a community, we should be begging them to take part in elections, not slamming the door on them by making them pay a hefty deposit that they probably will not get back. 
I understand the concerns raised by Opposition Members and, indeed, by my hon. Friends. However, the BNP will not go away if we take its deposits. We must stand up and be counted, debate the issues until we are blue in the face and, more importantly, win the argument. The rise of the BNP is a useful reminder that there are still issues to address and battles to fight. We should not be afraid of that but should, in fact, embrace it.

Brian Binley: It is not the raising of a deposit that matters but the danger of losing it that gives pause for thought—and so it should. The argument that we have just heard suggests that there should be no deposit at all. I argue that the deposit should give people pause for thought and make them consider whether the election is worth fighting, and certainly whether it is worth fighting from a frivolous point of view. Some people might think, ''Let's get involved in the election for a lark.'' No one can tell me that that does not happen, because a number of us have seen cases in which it has. I fear that the argument that we have heard is an argument for no deposit at all. I argue that there should be a deposit, that it should give people pause for serious thought, and that it should be of enough consequence to achieve that objective. I therefore support the amendment.

Peter Robinson: First, I apologise to you, Mr. O'Hara, and to other members of the Committee. The business managers of the House have managed to place me on two Committees at the same time and I have not quite succeeded in separating myself accordingly.
I have some experience of the issue that we are discussing, and not just in relation to Sinn Fein involvement in elections in Northern Ireland. Whatever one might think of the BNP, Sinn Fein or any other political parties, the reality is that it is probably better that they put themselves before the people, get the verdict of the people on their views and, if necessary, have their views exposed to public ridicule than it is for us to attempt to use electoral law to ensure that they cannot do so. 
The provision that concerns me much more is the one relating to frivolous candidates. Over the past 25 or 26 years in the House, I have fought a variety of salesmen—some who wanted to sell televisions and some who wanted to sell car exhausts—who found it worth while putting their name down for election so that they could get free post and other electoral benefits and sell their wares. We have not yet been able to deal appropriately with frivolous candidates but we should keep trying to discourage them, and I suspect  that the only way to discourage the kind of candidate that I have described is to require a deposit that makes it less profitable for them to use the electoral system as they do at present. However, electoral law should not be twisted to prevent people from receiving a democratic verdict on their views, no matter how repulsive those views may be.

Diana Johnson: My first reaction on considering the clause was to support it because it would allow people to engage in the electoral process far more easily. When I stood in the 2001 general election, the Church of the Militant Elvis also put up a candidate. Despite its name, it provided lively and informed debate about political issues. I was therefore minded to support the clause. However, I have listened to the debate, particularly the contributions from the hon. Member for Huntingdon and from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) and I feel very strongly about what has been said about the BNP and other extremist groups that use the publicity and the free post to get their message across. That concerns me greatly, and I think that we should stick with the 5 per cent. threshold. I support the amendment.

David Cairns: This has been an enlightening, interesting and thoughtful short debate on an issue that, although itself narrow, introduces the much broader concepts of access to elections and democratic participation. The amendment would remove the reduction in the threshold for the forfeiture of deposits at parliamentary elections from 5 to 2 per cent. and would keep the deposit at 5 per cent. The proposal to reduce the threshold came, as several hon. Members have said, from a recommendation by the Electoral Commission in its report entitled ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom''.
The commission originally proposed two options for the deposits and subscribers system. The first option was to abolish that system outright—a point that I think the hon. Member for Huntingdon made. The second option was to reduce the threshold to 2 per cent. of the vote and standardise the deposit at £500 for all elections. The aim of the proposal was to make the electoral system more accessible for smaller parties and encourage a wider range of such parties, and genuine independent candidates, to engage in the democratic process. 
I am sure that we all sympathise with that principle. We have spoken about the principles of accessibility and participation in the election in terms of how they apply to voters; they should also apply to those who wish to take part in the election by standing in it, not only to those who participate by voting. 
On Second Reading, I said that the will of the House was clearly expressed and that, with one or two exceptions, there was near universal disapproval of this aim. I gave an undertaking that we would clearly establish whether that view would carry on during the discussions in Committee. The discussion during the past 20 minutes or so has shown clearly that it has carried on. I shall briefly characterise my canvassing returns to make sure that I have them right The hon.  Member for Somerton and Frome said that he was agnostic on the proposal; the hon. Member for Huntingdon was clearly against the reduction from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent., as was my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley. I shall characterise the position of the hon. Member for Southport as ''weak against''; he certainly was not in favour. 
The only dissenting note came from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, who made a principled speech that addressed some of the issues of participation that I have just mentioned. He is absolutely right. The course of the debate has allowed us to focus on two separate issues—first, that of extremist parties, which are well organised and sometimes well financed. They have a hateful dogma and agenda, but, as in the famous maxim, we defend their right to make their case, as long as it does not incite violence. 
In a sense, my hon. Friend was arguing for the removal of deposits altogether; that was the logic of his position. I understand entirely where he is coming from and have a great deal of sympathy with his point. The way to deal with the BNP and any other extremist party, whether of the fascist or fundamentalist intolerant religious variety, is to deal with them on the substance of the argument—to take on their arguments and defeat them, not go about erecting some procedural fix to prevent them from making their arguments. Sure as eggs is eggs, they would simply use that as a martyrdom issue and say that they had been excluded. 
My hon. Friend is right to say that whatever we do with the deposit, such people are not going to go away, and we must not imagine that they are. That does not mean that we should lower the deposit, but that we must be realistic about the outcome. Whatever we do with the deposits, those vile people will not go away. We have to take on the argument where it is made and address the underlying reasons why such people get support from those who might otherwise not be tempted to support them. That is a much broader issue than is raised by the amendment. However, my hon. Friend was right to make his argument. 
The hon. Member for Northampton, South was against the reduction and made a strong case. That brings me to the second of the two broad categories that I was talking about—frivolous candidates. That distinction was also made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). We have to take seriously the issue of frivolous candidates—the owners of local pizza restaurants and so on—using an election to get free publicity and monitor it to ascertain whether it is becoming a weed in the democratic garden. The Daily Star, which was mentioned earlier, would of course be able to afford a deposit of 5 per cent., and would not mind losing it; it is a wealthy organisation owned by a very wealthy individual. No deposit would stop that kind of high-profile candidate. Frankly, we will have to live with that; I am not sure that we can do an awful lot about it.

Jonathan Djanogly: Sometimes, such organisations put up candidates all over the country; the £500 adds up by the time they get to seat No. 650.

David Cairns: I suppose that such practice is regarded as a cost-benefit analysis for the newspaper. To an organisation that has millions, the decision to spend £500 on 100 constituencies might be a price worth paying, if it receives x amount of free publicity.
We would not deal with the frivolous, well-financed, corporate candidate by changing levels of deposit or the level at which people retain their deposit or otherwise. We are now deciding whether a move from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. would be a good or a bad thing, for all the reasons that have been suggested. Different countries have different approaches to the matter. Yesterday I was with a group of Turkish Members of Parliament. Under the Turkish proportional system, there must be a 10 per cent. of the vote threshold before a party can have an MP, which means that only two parties have MPs. However, when those MPs get into Parliament they defect and set up their own parties, because they have access to state funding that can make them well off. The group explained that although the 10 per cent. order was designed to avoid a proliferation of parties, it did not work because once in Parliament, the Members set up their own parties to get around the problem. I am not aware that any country has found a perfect solution to deal with such problems. We will just have to deal with frivolous, well-funded, corporate candidates. 
Let us consider the other frivolous candidates, who simply use the election to gain publicity for an entirely bogus or worthless cause. The 5 per cent. or 2 per cent. issue may make a difference to them, and to that extent, we should think seriously about it before we make such a move. For those reasons, and for the reasons that I gave on Second Reading, it is clear that it is not the will of the House to proceed with the 5 to 2 per cent. reduction. 
Unfortunately, I am not in a position simply to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Without wanting to lift the curtain on the magic by which such matters are decided across Government when a change of that nature is being considered, I can give him a clear undertaking that we shall come back, having been through the process and having reported back on the clearly expressed view not only of the Committee but of the House on Second Reading—when many speeches were made by hon. Members who are not here now—that it is not desirable to reduce the deposit from 5 per cent. to 2 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not push his amendment to a vote, because I would have to urge my colleagues to resist it, for the reasons that I have outlined. I assure him that we shall return to the issue on Report.

Jonathan Djanogly: The debate has been helpful and interesting. I thank the Minister for agreeing to return to the subject at a later stage. I shall not go through all the contributions that have been made, but I want to pick up a few points. The hon. Member for Dundee, West made some important points. He said that we needed to find ways in which to raise participation. I agree. He said that we needed to engage with those who are disaffected by the political process and might join extremist parties. To a degree, he is right. However, I do not believe that the way to do that is  to give extremists carrying a tiny percentage of the vote the right to have access to taxpayers' funds.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East made an important contribution to the debate. He said that there is an increasing tendency for commercial salespeople to use the electoral process as a way in which to receive publicity for their businesses. There seems to be an increasing tendency for single-issue lobbyists, who have no intention of representing the constituency as a whole, to use the election as a podium to promote their single-issue policies. If we removed or reduced the deposit level, those people, in particular, would be encouraged to stand for election. 
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made it clear that the amendment was an important point of principle for the Conservative party. I shall therefore ask for a Division, although I acknowledge that the Minister has said that he will return to the issue later. 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Description of independent candidates

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in clause 23, page 25, line 3, leave out 'Scotland'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in clause 23, page 25, line 7, at end insert—
'(c) in relation to a candidate standing in an election in Scotland, it consists of the word ''independent'' or the word ''Neo-eisimeil''.'. 
No. 21, in clause 23, page 25, line 43, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'. 
No. 22, in clause 23, page 25, line 45, after 'or' insert 'Scottish Gaelic or'. 
No. 23, in clause 23, page 26, line 35, leave out 'Scotland'. 
No. 24, in clause 23, page 26, line 38, at end insert— 
'(c) in relation to an election in Scotland ''IND/NEO-E'' or, if the candidate so requests, ''NEO-E/IND''.'. 
No. 26, in clause 23, page 26, line 45, after '''ANNIB/IND''', insert '''IND/NEO-E'' and ''NEO-E/IND''.'. 
No. 25, in clause 23, page 26, line 45, leave out 'and'.

David Heath: The amendment stands in the name of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil). I entirely understand why he wished to have it moved because the clause is relevant to his constituency and a few other others in Scotland. It is right that the Committee should consider his amendment and that the Minister has the opportunity to argue against what he proposes, if, indeed, the Minister intends to oppose it. The purpose of the amendment is clear. It is to put Scottish Gaelic, for those who speak the language, on an equal footing with Welsh. In clause 23, an independent candidate in a Welsh constituency can be described as ''Annibynnwr'' in Welsh rather than as ''Independent'' in English.
I add in parentheses that that might cause some confusion in principally Welsh-speaking constituencies, because I understand that ''Annibynnwr'' is a commonly used abbreviation for Annibynnwr Cymru, which is the Welsh Congregationalists Union. The Minister should be aware of, and perhaps address, the prospect of confusion arising.

Chris Ruane: The chief executive of Denbighshire county council has written to point out that the terminology in the Bill is incorrect. The word that needs to be replaced is ''Annibynnwr'', as a description of an independent candidate in Wales. That should be ''Annibynnol'', in line with all the other electoral registration, whereas ''Annibynnwr'' is a member of an independent chapel.

David Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a Welsh constituency. Although my proud boast is that I was born 25 miles from Cardiff, it was a rather wet 25 miles, and we are the Celts who could not swim.
That is a diversion from the point that I am trying to make, which is that Gaelic is a language spoken by not a huge number of people resident in Scotland, but by a significant number particularly congregated in one or two constituencies on the west coast. It is recognised in the name of the constituency, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, which used to be, as those who served in previous Parliaments will know, the Western Isles. It is no longer described as the Western Isles, but is described in Gaelic to reflect the preferences of the population in that area. The point that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is making is that, although Gaelic does not have the same statutory protection as Welsh, nevertheless, for clarity of purpose, for a candidate standing in a constituency in which Gaelic is the principal language of everyday conversation, at least amongst a section of the community, it would not seem unreasonable for Gaelic to be given the same position as Welsh in Wales. Having already expressed my concerns about ''Annibynnwr'', I have insufficient Gaelic to know what the word for ''Independent'' is. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain, if he wishes to resist the amendment, why it is appropriate to do so. Perhaps he may not and suggest that it should be pursued, possibly in consultation with the Scottish Executive and his Department.

David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing these issues to be discussed in Committee. I shall deal with them in turn. On the issue of the apparently wrong Welsh word, we had a long discourse on that from the hon. Gentleman who speaks for Plaid Cymru on these matters. I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West by telling him that I told the spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales—I even got that pronunciation wrong—that I had enjoyed his discourse. He told me that he is the author of a Welsh language dictionary, to which I said that I thought that he sounded as if he had swallowed it before his talk, interesting though it was. I am simply in no position to adjudicate. I realise that when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box, they are the fount of all wisdom. Alas, this issue is not something on which I can give a definitive assurance. Suffice it to say that the issue has been drawn to our attention, both by the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading and by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. I thank my hon. Friend and his chief executive for bringing it to our attention. Clearly, we want to get the words right and, in a sense, what matters is getting the words right on the ballot paper. If—I had better not use caricatures—there is an agreement after that discussion, however long it may take, that we need to replace one word with the other, we shall certainly seek to do it.
The amendments would allow the Scottish Gaelic words contained in them to be used as the counterpart for ''independent'' on nomination forms and ballot papers at parliamentary elections. I appreciate why hon. Members are using this opportunity to promote the use of Gaelic language. There has been a boom in Gaelic language education and a general reawakening of interest in the language, which the Government fully support. 
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, recognised that by providing for the establishment of a body, Bord na Gaidhlig, to promote the use and understanding of the Gaelic language. Indeed, I met the new chairman of the bord last weekend in Inverary. He is certainly undertaking his role with great vigour and vim. The Act enables the bord to require certain public bodies to prepare and implement plans that will set out how they will use the Gaelic language in the exercise of their functions. However, limitations are placed on the bord. It cannot require any reserved public body, or any body undertaking reserved functions in respect of those functions, to prepare and implement such plans. The conduct of parliamentary elections in Scotland and the franchise for all elections are reserved matters, so such plans cannot be required in respect of those issues. The Scottish Act does not provide for forms and so on to be provided in Gaelic, although some public bodies may plan to make their forms available in Gaelic. 
The provisions in clause 34 that enable returning officers to provide information and so on in languages other than English and Welsh will allow them to provide such information in Gaelic. In some areas of Scotland returning officers will probably wish to make  use of such provisions. In other areas, perhaps the vast majority, it is unlikely that there will be a great call for them. The clause will not relate to nomination forms or ballot papers, as they are specified in legislation and can only be in English or Welsh. The reason for that is a much bigger issue about the relative use and wide-spokenness, if that is a phrase, of Welsh and of Gaelic in Scotland. 
According to the 2001 census, there are 582,000 Welsh speakers in Wales out of a total population of 2.9 million. In comparison, there are 58,600 Gaelic speakers in Scotland out of a total resident population of just over 5 million. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was correct to say that the latter are disproportionately resident in a couple of small areas, but given that the provision would apply not in a small area but across Scotland, we are not persuaded that there is a case to be made for the use of Gaelic language on nomination and ballot papers. I therefore encourage the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the hon. Members in whose names the amendment stands, to seek to withdraw it.

David Heath: I thank the Minister for setting out his reasons for resisting the Gaelic amendments. If a candidate wishes to describe himself by means of a Gaelic language in an area that is principally Gaelic speaking, it does not seem necessary for there to be an impediment to that process, given that it is a native language of these isles, but that can be debated on another occasion. I am grateful for the clarity of the Minister's exposition.
As regards the Welsh issue, I simply say to the Minister diolch yn fawr, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 23, page 25, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (9).

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 48, in clause 23, page 25, line 13, leave out 'to be likely'.
No. 49, in clause 23, page 25, line 15, leave out 
'it is not likely to' 
and insert 'will not'. 
No. 50, in clause 23, page 25, line 22, leave out 'be likely'. 
No. 51, in clause 23, page 26, line 23, at end insert— 
'( ) If the returning officer thinks that the description on the nomination paper of a candidate whose description is not authorised as mentioned in rule 6A(1) or (1B) is misleadingly similar to a ''registered description'', as detailed in section 28A or 28B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, he must, as soon as practicable after the receipt of the non-authorised description, give his decision on its validity.'.

David Heath: At first sight this looks like a wrecking amendment. It is not intended to be. It is a probing amendment. The clause describes a process by which independent candidates can affix, within the description on the ballot paper what is essentially a political message about what they are standing for.  Many people say that if someone has a political platform, unless they are absolutely alone in that view, it is perhaps better to form a political party to espouse it. The registration process for political parties is not difficult. If they want to be described as independents, they should be independent rather than use the ballot paper to promote a political platform. That is the position we have taken for some time. I would not go to the stake on it, because I can see that there are instances where a local issue is relevant to the candidacy of an independent candidate.
There are perils in allowing such descriptors to be placed on the ballot paper, not least the concerns, which I know the hon. Member for Huntingdon will want to explore, about terms that might cause confusion with a registered political party standing in the same election. As I say, an independent is an independent. Some independents are more independent than others, as we all well know, not when standing for parliamentary elections but in some local government elections. If we accept the fact, as we should, that some people do not wish to be tied to a political party or a party position, that should be taken at face value in the description used on the ballot paper. 
My request, through the amendment, is for the Minister to explain why he believes it appropriate for independents to provide a slogan on the ballot paper when registered political parties are generally restricted to their name and logo. It seems an unfair advantage.

Jonathan Djanogly: We share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Independents are by definition just that. They are separate and unaligned to any organisation or pressure group. If candidates wish to run under a particular banner, they should register as a political party and be subject to the same public scrutiny and accountability that registered parties face under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, such as the publishing of their accounts. It cannot be of service to the important role of independent candidates in our democracy for their independence to be eroded by descriptions of a partisan nature, or for special privileges to be bestowed on them that are unavailable to political parties. We support a lot of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said on that.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 are essentially probing, intended to draw attention to the need for the clause to operate with certainty and to identify some of the problems that could arise if it were applied inconsistently. We want to add certainty to a vague clause that could lead to inconsistency. We understand that each decision will need to be made case by case, but that does not mean that there should be inconsistency of application to similar cases. Returning officers will operate under guidance issued by the Electoral Commission, and that is most welcome. 
There is no need to include such phrases as ''to be likely to'' in subsection (3). Such phrases introduce a large objective element to the decision.

David Cairns: Subjective?

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the Minister—''subjective'' rather than ''objective'' is correct. In whose opinion should it be likely? If returning officers are to make such a decision, and if that decision has to be based on Electoral Commission guidance, it should be made clear and certain that that is the case. That would ensure that the commission guidance was more strictly applied. Additional legislation may be needed to ensure consistency between all returning officers when it comes to deciding whether there is a conflict.
The Bill gives returning officers authority without consultation, provided that they have regard to guidance from the Electoral Commission. We wonder whether that will be sufficient. For instance, the Bill states that descriptions should not be the same as the description of another candidate and should not be 
''likely to lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party''.
That seems vague. Once again, is ''Independent Left'' acceptable? Is ''Independent Labour'' misleading? The final decision would depend on the opinion of the returning officer, and there would thus be no consistency among constituencies or council areas. What opportunities would be available for other candidates or electors to contest the judgment of the returning officer? Does the Minister agree that the clause could be seen as vague and that such vagueness could lead to problems? 
Subsection (4) would amend rule 12 in the 1983 Act so as to require the returning officer to inform a candidate if he considered that the candidate's desired description was ''misleadingly similar'' to that of another candidate. Amendment No. 51 would extend the requirement on the returning officer to include informing a candidate if he considered that the candidate's desired description was 
''misleadingly similar'' to a 'registered description', as detailed in section 28A or 28B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000''.
The amendment would therefore help to protect registered descriptions that political parties wished to use on nomination papers, and we believe that it is a sensible extension of the requirement on the returning officer. Will the Minister explain why something of that sort was not included originally?

John Pugh: Amendment No. 6 may seem harsh. We need a change in the law not least because of the famous time when a candidate took votes from the Liberal Democrats by describing himself as a ''Literal Democrat''. After the various processes of judicial appeal, that situation was upheld.

Chris Ruane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the other famous incident, when Rod Richards' opponent in Clwyd, West called himself the ''Conservatory'' candidate?

John Pugh: It is such cases that obliged those standing for election to nominate a party. I am relaxed with the idea of independents forming, almost ad hoc, whatever party they choose. I once ran against a candidate standing for ''Your party'', but it was confusing when canvassing because people would always say, ''We're voting for your party''. 
Independents can use almost whatever epithet they choose—the regulations do limit what can be chosen—and they do not seem to be precluded from using the campaign theme of the moment. They can almost turn the election into a referendum. For instance, if candidates who described themselves as ''Stop the Iraq War'' were standing at a particularly volatile time, people might take their candidature as a verdict on the war rather than a question of who would most properly represent them. With that advantage, it is only to be expected that mainstream political parties would wish to describe themselves and their stand in a fuller and more explicit way. 
Other issues are involved. For instance, proposed new section 6B(3)(d) says that the returning officer must decide whether a description is offensive. I can imagine that that would lead to some fine judgments. If a candidate chose to describe himself as an ''anti-corruption'' candidate—I do not see why he should not do so under existing legislation—would it be offensive to the other candidates standing against him? Would they be thought of as pro-corruption candidates? The returning officer has to make such judgments. 
Allowing candidates to be independent and giving them the use of a pile of descriptors, so long as they do not confuse people about whether they are members of a different party, still puts the returning officer in a difficult situation, and different returning officers in different parts of the country will make up their minds differently. However, it will not be universally incontestable, so it may be simpler to stay with the status quo.

David Cairns: The provisions that will allow independent candidates to use a description on their nomination and ballot paper are based on the Electoral Commission's recommendation in its report ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom,'' which was published in June 2003.
Perhaps I might outline some history. Between 1969 and 2001, all candidates standing for election in the UK were entitled to use a description, until a change introduced in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which restricted independent candidates to using the description ''independent'', or none at all. The only exception is, as we know, Mr. Speaker, who is entitled to use the description ''The Speaker seeking re-election''. The Government's provision will change the current situation, whereby candidates who represent political parties can use a description on their nomination paper and, thereby, on the ballot paper, but independent parties cannot. It will create, essentially, a level playing field for all candidates who want to participate in the democratic process.

John Pugh: That bears precisely on the argument that I was trying to put, although the hon. Member for Huntingdon put it rather better: fundamentally, if candidates are allowed an epithet, or some kind of description, they have an advantage that the simple words ''Labour'', ''Conservative'' or ''Liberal Democrat'' will not confer, because they can identify themselves with something that may be the main theme of the election.

David Cairns: That will be so only if the candidates for the political parties choose to describe themselves as, for example ''The Labour party candidate''. They choose to do that, but they do not have to. They can use another message if they want to. That is the point. Independent candidates cannot include a description, but we can. The current position is that we tell them that what is good enough for us is not good enough for them. I am not entirely sure that the change is a particularly big step forward.
Clause 23 provides additional protection for political parties, ensuring that, when using a description, independent candidates cannot do so misleadingly. It sets out the requirements to which an independent candidate must adhere, when providing a description at nomination. That was not the case under the previous regime for candidates' descriptions, before 2001, when independent candidates could use any description they wanted. We are not returning to the free-for-all of the past; the matter has been clearly prescribed. 
Clause 23 states that it would be a matter for the returning officer, having regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission, to decide whether a description proposed by an independent candidate would be permissible. We are laying down guidelines in statute. Some will be issued by the Electoral Commission, and the returning officer will have some discretion. We are including significant safeguards. 
Amendment No. 6 would remove the provision allowing independent candidates to use a description on their nomination paper. The Electoral Commission consulted widely on that. There was genuine, widespread support among local authorities, political parties and others for liberalisation with respect to the candidates' descriptions. However, numerous responses pointed out that, if more than one independent candidate stood for election in the same constituency, the candidates and the electorate would be disadvantaged by the confusion arising from the general use of the term ''independent''. 
There are, then, good arguments for allowing an independent candidate to use a description on the nomination paper and the ballot paper. In many cases, more than one independent candidate will stand in a constituency, and the use of a description will enable voters to distinguish between the candidates. Effectively, that will mean that they will not be able to use the same description as another, apart from the word ''independent''. Nor will they be able to use a description likely to confuse an elector, lead an elector to associate the candidate with a registered political party, or mislead an elector as to the effect of their vote. For example—to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Southport—no independent candidate would be able to adopt a description like ''Literal Democrat'' as happened in the past. 
As I have said, we are trying to create the right balance between avoiding confusion for voters and facilitating the participation of all candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to a registered political party—and registered political parties do not own democracy; we may all belong to them, and view  them as the best vehicle for achieving change in society, but we should not think of them as the only route into the democratic process. 
Independents have a long-standing place in the political system and have traditionally been an important force in local politics and elections. I see no good reason for an independent candidate not to enjoy the same privileges as those afforded to candidates who represent political parties with respect to the inclusion of a description on a nomination form. 
Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 would change the requirements by which the validity of an independent candidate's description is determined. Those requirements are set out in clause 23(2). They state that the description should not be likely to confuse an elector by being so similar to a registered description or the description of another candidate as to be likely to confuse an elector. The description should also not be likely to lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party. Moreover, the description should not be likely to mislead a voter as to the effect of their vote, or to contradict or hinder an elector's understanding. 
I fully understand the position of the hon. Member for Huntingdon as to the word ''likely'' introducing a subjective element. However, I am struggling to understand how else the objective can be accomplished because one cannot prove definitively, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the stage that the nomination papers are introduced, that the description will mislead. The only way one could discover whether it would mislead would be to hold the election and to find out afterwards whether people were misled or not. That would be quite a risk to take with as important a process as voting. 
On balance, it is best to allow a degree of subjectivity, subject to the guidelines that I mentioned, the provisos in the Bill and the guidelines from the Electoral Commission. That will allow a degree of discretion to the local returning officer to say, ''I am sorry, but I think that that is likely to mislead.'' I take the hon. Gentleman's point: at that stage it will be impossible to prove one way or another. The only way to prove that definitively would be to wait until someone had been misled, by which time the damage would have been done. People will have the opportunity under the provision of other clauses to come up with another name and submit a form that will pass muster. 
Amendment No. 51 is modelled on the provision in clause 23(4), which requires the returning officer to make a decision as soon as practicable after the submission of a nomination paper if it is misleadingly similar to that of another independent candidate. That would have the effect of allowing an independent candidate to resubmit their nomination form, which is a good thing. 
Clause 22(7) amends parliamentary elections rule 12(3A) to specify that if a returning officer decides that a candidate's description is likely to confuse or wrongly lead electors to associate the candidate with  a registered political party, and is so invalid, the returning officer shall make a decision as soon as possible after the delivery of the nomination paper. The candidate would, therefore, be able to resubmit a nomination paper, assuming, of course, that there was enough time. The serious matter raised by the tabling of amendment No. 51 is addressed by a previous measure. However, we fully sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment.

John Pugh: The Minister spoke of a level playing field with regard to descriptions for parties. If a Labour party candidate wishes to flesh out precisely the kind of politician he is, and describes himself as a ''Labour party anti-corruption candidate'' or the ''Labour party candidate fighting for Camberley'', is that allowed in the same way that independent candidates can add that kind of information about themselves?

David Cairns: I understand that those matters must be agreed at a higher level, but I shall take guidance on that. The description must be registered. At the last Scottish Parliament election, a Scottish Socialist party candidate stood as ''Scottish Socialist Convener Tommy Sheridan'', as he was better known in the party. He was subsequently sacked as convener, so presumably he will have to re-register for the next Scottish Parliament elections.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. He has finally touched on the difficulty. Without wishing to pre-empt our debates, clause 47 limits the number of descriptions that a political party can have. It would be impossible for a candidate standing on behalf of a political party in a particular constituency to say that he was in favour of saving the local hospital, for example, but an independent candidate would be able to make precisely that claim. Such an issue might be the most important in that election campaign. I do not think that we have the equity that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

David Cairns: It saddens me that such a profoundly liberal gentleman as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is taking such a heavy-handed approach to independent candidates. Registered political parties will be able to register up to five descriptions and they can choose which descriptions they have. An independent person can register, or submit, one description for use on the ballot paper. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are entirely valid. It could be argued that the name ''Liberal Democrat'' sends out some political message, as does the word ''Conservative''.

David Heath: Because it is the name of a party.

David Cairns: But it presumably is not just the name of a party; it is the philosophy underlining the party. It could be argued that the hon. Gentleman's party gets two bites of the cherry by having it in the name and also having one of five descriptions.
We have to keep this in context. It is confusing if people are just registered as independents and are not allowed to differentiate themselves from other independents on the same ballot paper. The provision aims for clarity. It will allow independents  to differentiate themselves from each other and to use descriptions of themselves in the way that registered political parties do. I cannot understand what the big fuss is about.

Brian Binley: I am concerned. If I wanted to stand as a ''Conservative against the sustainable communities project'' in my constituency, I assume that that would be disallowed because it would not be one of the registered five slogans that my party might choose nationally. If, however, an independent stood as an ''Independent against the sustainable communities project'', that would be a powerful message in my constituency. Let us consider the number of electors who read our literature—we are talking about being inclusive. We like to think that every one of those electors reads our literature from beginning to end. The truth is—all research tells us this—that few do. That is one of the problems we face. The ballot paper therefore assumes greater importance.
The Minister has misunderstood the point made by Opposition Members. Will he at least tell us that he will rethink his position in the light of those statements? There is a built-in bias, in view of the example that I have just given.

David Cairns: Mr. Speaker—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I appreciate the promotion.

David Cairns: Mr. O'Hara, I am sorry. The evening is drawing on and I am at a loss to understand why we are having this particular debate.
Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he fears that when someone goes into the polling station and takes a ballot paper, just seeing the words, ''John Smith: independent candidate against sustainable development'', completely out of context, will suddenly give the candidate a great advantage that he, as a representative of a political party that we heard today gets £50 million of taxpayers' funding, does not have? 
Such a view presupposes that the individual, irrespective of their name and what appears on the ballot paper, has not been able to distribute literature throughout the constituency making their case and calling themselves what they will on that literature. We are talking about the description that appears on the ballot paper. Political parties can put those on; they can register up to five, whereas independents cannot. There is a question of equity. Are we saying to independents, ''Sorry, you cannot do that because it slightly inconveniences us''? Alternatively, are we telling them that they can do it because there is unlikely to be more than one Labour or Liberal Democrat candidate, but there might be more than one independent person standing? For both of those reasons—equity and avoiding confusion—independents should be allowed to put a description on the ballot paper. If somebody wishes to describe himself as an independent candidate against sustainable communities, and that is read as an attack on the position of another candidate, it is up to each of them to convince the electorate that he is right. Preventing people from describing themselves on ballot papers is not the way to go. That would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Peter Robinson: I put it to the Minister that there is an issue here—it is one that I have faced, albeit in a council election. My party highlighted an issue that turned out to be the one on which the campaign was fought. An independent came along, used that issue to describe himself and, although he was not elected, took a significant number of the votes that would otherwise have gone to my party. Thus a party's total number of votes can be reduced and, in a proportional representation election, that could cost it the seat. Council elections in Northern Ireland are fought under PR, so one could lose a seat because somebody has stolen an idea and put it forward. Not everybody votes for personalities or parties. Some vote for policies, and if the up-front policy of the election is attached to one candidate's description, some people might well vote for that person.

David Cairns: The same principle applies to the registering of a party. If an independent describes himself on the ballot paper as the ''Save the hospital'' candidate, there is nothing to stop that person from registering as the ''Save the hospital'' party. We have established the principle that people can use descriptors in registering themselves. However, at the risk of repeating myself, we are saying that political parties have the ability to use descriptors but we do not allow that for independents. On the grounds of equity, I do not see why we should not allow it for independents.
There is also something that nobody has addressed: if we do not allow it for independents, we could end up with three or four independents on the ballot paper, with no means of knowing which is which. If elections are about issues, we should be in favour of the measure. I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but the issue will not be so momentous as to decide elections one way or another. If it is the recommendation of the Electoral Commission, having consulted widely, it seems equitable to allow independent candidates to do what we, as political parties, are able to do. We should not hog all the benefits, but should allow the tiny benefit of a few words on a ballot paper to be extended to them. We have not had a meeting of minds, but I hope that amendment will be withdrawn.

David Heath: It is my intention to do so. However, the Minister is right: far from having a meeting of minds, we have diverged further during the course of his remarks. We have sat through them, because he is trying to provide an equitable solution to the problem, but one has only to look at Wyre Forest to see the potency of the use of a particular descriptor in a particular area and the linking of a campaign to it. One could also look at Blaenau Gwent.
I merely put to the Committee the point that has been made many times. The Bill reduces the capacity of political parties to position themselves on ballot papers in association with what might be major issues in particular constituencies while allowing a person who calls himself an independent to have a slogan. Independence should be independence. That is a noble and proper position to take. However, it should not give somebody an electoral advantage over those who  are prepared to stand in support of a political party with a wider programme. 
The Minister does not agree with me, but he does not agree with any Opposition Member so far as I can see, and his colleagues have not spoken and do not intend to do so. On that basis, although we might return to the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jim Devine: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 23, page 26, line 8, leave out '(b)' and insert
'(c) (inserted by section [Candidate not to stand in more than one constituency]'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 23, page 26, line 10, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.

Jim Devine: I am moving the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). In preparing to make my contribution, I have had what I think of as a Blackadder moment. Hon. Members who know the television programme ''Blackadder'' will know that Baldrick, a much misunderstood individual, was always coming up with cunning plans which never came to fruition. In explaining the importance of agreeing to the amendment, I want to mention a very cunning plan.

David Heath: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Lord Chancellor of England in 1075 was also called Baldrick.

Jim Devine: I think that I saw the television programme in which he was elected—but I want to take us to January 2010.
There is press speculation that this will be the last chance that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs—still fresh of face, but with the ageing process catching up with her—will have to run for the leadership of the party and, therefore, become Prime Minister of this great country. 
Let us imagine that fortuitously, my right hon. and learned Friend's great aunt has just been diagnosed with terminal cancer—and, being an election agent of many years standing, I have a cunning plan. I shall get her great aunt to stand in the constituency of some 40 of her Cabinet colleagues throughout the country. Because of the wonderful national health service that we have under a Labour Government—with more nurses and doctors providing care—she survives until the election campaign, but sadly dies during the election, and as a consequence, 40 of the Minister's parliamentary Cabinet colleagues have to postpone their election. Waking up on the morning of the first Friday in May, not only is the Minister in 10 Downing street, but she is the beneficiary of a large inheritance from her aunt. 
Using this Devine cunning plan, I have also worked out that on that same morning, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be Secretary  of State for Scotland, Secretary of State for Transport, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Defence Minister, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Deputy Leader of the House and Deputy Chief Whip. 
The worrying thing is the twinkle in the eyes of my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend, who may now decide to oppose this worthy amendment. I suggest that in that scenario, my colleagues should keep the Parliamentary Private Secretary positions open for when the new Cabinet members come back, so that they can get started back in the ministerial line as quickly as possible. 
That is the scenario we face today, which is why we need to change the law. Someone from a euthanasia society, for example, could stand in constituencies throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom and have a major impact not only on the democratic process, but—bearing in mind what happened in 1974, when there were two general elections and a minority Government coming to power—but on the election of the Government. The chosen will of the people of this country would be forfeit. That is why I am proud to support amendments Nos. 13 and 14—with linked later amendments—tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, which would prevent candidates at future UK parliamentary elections from standing in more than one constituency. An amendment was accepted for inclusion in the Bill, and consequential amendments are necessary to make the clause effective. 
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would change clause 23, which itself introduces changes to rule 8 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. I am glad that I do not need to do that research myself. The amendments take into account the insertion of the new clause preventing a candidate from standing in multiple constituencies; that, too, changes rule 8 of the rules under the 1983 Act.

David Cairns: Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are consequential amendments that would give effect to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that were accepted on the Floor of the House. As such, these amendments enjoy the full support of the Government.
Amendment agreed to. 
Amendment made: No. 14, in clause 23, page 26, line 10, leave out '(c)' and insert '(d)'.—[Mr. Devine.] 
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly: The clause makes amendments enabling independent candidates to include a description on their nomination papers and on the ballot paper. It also allows independent candidates to include a description other than the word ''independent'' on ballot papers. We have concerns about it for a number of reasons, several of which were mentioned in the debate on the amendments to the clause.
The ability to add some words of description on the nomination and ballot papers after a candidate's name  was first offered by the Ballot Act 1872, rule 6. The present position was summarised in a 2003 report by the Electoral Commission, ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom'', as follows: 
''A person can stand as a candidate for a party only if the nomination paper is submitted with a certificate of authorisation of candidature issued by or on behalf of the Nominating Officer of a registered political party.
Any candidate can include a description on the nomination paper that will be included beside the name on the ballot paper. However, if a candidate is standing independently, he/she can only have 'Independent' inserted beside their name. If the candidate is standing for a registered political party, a description of no more than six words may be included, provided that they have produced a valid certificate of authorisation from their party.''
Independent candidates should be required to sign a declaration along with their nomination papers, confirming that they are not standing on behalf of a collective, a party or a commercial organisation. The clause introduces a new rule 6B into the parliamentary elections rules of the 1983 Act. The rule will allow a six-word description for independent candidates. In Wales, there is provision for six words in English or six words in Welsh. The description must not be the same or confusingly similar to the description of another candidate. The exception is the word ''independent'' or the Welsh equivalent, which may be used by any or all independents. 
The clause makes provision for a list of prohibited words or expressions, which are to be specified by the Secretary of State after consulting the Electoral Commission, and that is certainly welcome. The returning officer is to decide on the acceptability of the description, but he must have regard to guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. We welcome that provision, which will go some way towards ensuring consistency of application. 
Descriptions must not be obscene, offensive or likely to lead to the commission of an offence. The clause also provides for independent candidates to have an emblem, ''IND'' or ''ANNIB'', next to their name on the ballot paper, and to make a statement that they have not been selected to stand for a registered political party. Nevertheless, if there is to be a description, it would not be a substitute for including the word ''independent'' in that description. 
The clause allows independent candidates to include a description other than ''independent'' on ballot papers. We have a problem with that, for various reasons. First, the wording of the clause could be seen as ambiguous; it appears to me that if independents use the word ''independent'' in their description, they would not be limited to a six-word description, but could have a description of unlimited length. Is that correct? That reading of the clause arises from the word ''or'' in subsection (3)(g)(i), and the use of the word ''consists'' in proposed new rule 6B(2). Perhaps the word ''only'' should follow the word ''consists'' in order to remove the ambiguity. 
Secondly, as I said earlier, independents are, by their very definition, independent. They are separate and independent from any organisation or pressure group. If candidates wish to run under a banner, they should register as a political party, and they should be subject to the same public scrutiny and accountability  that registered parties face under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The non-partisan position of independents is important in our democracy, and is worthy of protection. These proposals could undermine that position, both by giving them certain advantages over candidates standing for political parties and by altering their essential political neutrality. These measures would weaken the long-term position of independents, and open the electoral system to even greater confusion than already exists. 
Thirdly, the desire to maximise opportunities for independents to describe themselves in any manner they wish is inconsistent with the Government's other proposal radically to restrict the ability of political parties to do just that. I do not wish to stray into a discussion of another set of amendments, but by contrast—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome identified this—clause 47, relating to the descriptions of political parties, seeks to restrict the ability of registered political parties to use variants of their descriptions. For the first time, parties will be limited to only five different types of description—although the Secretary of State can vary that number. Independents will be able to use any number of potential variations, but political parties will not. The Minister cannot simultaneously advocate simplicity for political parties and diversity for independents. That is both inconsistent and somewhat biased. Therefore, we oppose the proposals. 
If we are to accept that the historical position of independents on a ballot paper has to be altered to allow the six-word description, the most viable method is to insist on the word ''independent'' being included in those six words. That would allow the description, but it would limit confusion for the elector and go some way to protect the position of the independent candidate as something distinct and worthy of separate classification—which I suspect that the majority of independents would be anxious to ensure for themselves. Allowing the six-word description with no obvious reference to independent status would maximise confusion, penalise political parties and downgrade independents to becoming little more than one-man political parties by the back door. 
We recognise that there may be concerns that current rules governing the registration of political parties control only the Electoral Commission's register of party names, rather than the party names used on ballot papers, which may be variants of those on the register. However, the solution proposed is demonstrably wrong.

David Cairns: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to revisit these issues in his clause stand part speech, but given that the amendments that we have just addressed, taken together, would delete almost the entire clause, we have already effectively had a substantial stand part debate on them.
I reiterate the points that I made then. First, there are reasons of equity; we allow ourselves such descriptions, but we do not allow them to independents. I think that we should. There is also the reason of avoiding confusion; if there is more than one independent on the ballot paper, it might be useful  for the elector to know which independent is which, so we should allow descriptions. It is simply not the case that independents can have as many descriptions as they want; they can have only one—one independent candidate, one description. 
We who are in political parties are not in a position to say, ''Everybody else has to get into political parties, or else they will not be able to take part.'' That expresses a bit of a siege mentality. If an individual wishes to stand as an independent, and is genuinely independent, they should be allowed to have a description on the ballot paper. Clearly, I have not convinced the massed ranks of the Opposition. I did not do it when we were debating the amendments and I suspect that I am not going to do it now, but, for reasons of equity and to avoid confusion, I urge hon. Members not to reject the clause at this stage, because it is important. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Omission of reference to Maundy Thursday

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I seek some guidance from the Ministers. The clause appears to mark an innovation in drafting because there does not appear to be any operative element to it. It simply describes what is elsewhere in the Bill. I wonder whether that is a deliberate innovation or whether the clause has some consequence of which I know nothing.

Harriet Harman: I am not quite sure that I understood the hon. Gentleman's point. It may or may not be addressed in what I am about to say. I will explain why we are arguing that the clause should stand part of the Bill by explaining what it does. It removes Maundy Thursday, which, as hon. Members will know, is the day before Good Friday, from the list of days that are not deemed to be countable days for the purposes of elections.

David Heath: That is my problem. I have nothing against removing Maundy Thursday from the list of countable days and if I can avoid the rest of the speech that the Minister prepared in case there were any objections, I shall be delighted. I am simply saying that the clause does not remove Maundy Thursday from the list; part 4 of schedule 1 does that. Apparently, all that the clause does is draw attention to another area of the Bill.

Harriet Harman: We have to have complicated drafting—[Interruption.] For goodness' sake. I will resist the temptation for us all to be in a lather of agreement about this issue, because the other place might want to know that we have considered it. Potentially, it touches on religious issues because Maundy Thursday will be a countable day, as opposed to a non-countable day, and it is the day before Good Friday. So, I ask hon. Members to bear with me. 
Under electoral law, Maundy Thursday is included in the list of days—it includes Saturday, Sunday and bank holidays—that are to be disregarded for the purposes of the electoral timetable. Traditionally, Maundy Thursday was a holiday for public servants. However, Maundy Thursday is a working day for the majority of people involved in the election process, including voters, electoral administrators, candidates and political parties. Elections often take place in May, and Maundy Thursday will often arise during the campaign. To help make the electoral timetable more straightforward and intelligible, and to avoid any confusion, the Government have agreed that there is no longer any need for Maundy Thursday to be included in the list of days to be disregarded for the purposes of the election timetable. 
I am conscious that it has been pointed out that the change could mean that a general election might be held on Maundy Thursday, which is a very important day in the Christian calendar. Although that is unlikely to happen in practice, I should make it clear that the provision implements a recommendation of the Electoral Commission arising from its review of election timetables in the United Kingdom. The Electoral Commission published a consultation paper as part of its review, which was sent to all registered political parties, including Christian parties such as the Christian Peoples Alliance. No representations were received from Christian groups, or anyone else, opposing the Maundy Thursday proposal. Maundy Thursday has already been removed as a ''non-day'' in Scotland for elections to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local elections.

David Heath: That did not answer my question, but perhaps the Minister will write to me in due course.

Harriet Harman: When I write to the hon. Gentleman, I will say that this is not an unusual drafting method in cases where it is more appropriate for the technical detail to be set out in a schedule.

Edward O'Hara: Order. That is the point I was going to make. As I understand it, the schedule contains the substance but it must refer to a clause—in this case, clause 24.

David Heath: Mr. O'Hara, I am most grateful for your guidance and I agree with it, but normally there is some operative sense in the clause. In other words, the clause says that something will happen and the schedule says how. This clause does not do that, but I do not want to detain the Committee any longer.
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Use of candidates' common names

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I know that Committee members are hoping for our proceedings to reach a conclusion at some stage in the near future, but this is an important point. I welcome the Government's suggestion  regarding the use of candidates' common first names. It always was nonsensical that we had things like ''Dick commonly described as Harry'' on the ballot paper, and if we can change that nonsense, it is good that we do so.
I am less than totally convinced about surnames. As I understand it, in law, surnames are adopted by people as their principal descriptor; surnames have less status in law than first names to a certain extent. The commonly held misapprehension is that a deed poll is necessary to change one's surname. It is not; it is simply a matter of whether one is attempting to defraud or deceive. If one is not, one can adopt any surname one chooses, and that becomes the name by which one is commonly known. Therefore, I have to ask how it is that within electoral law we shall now have a person with two apparent surnames? It is a sort of Elton John amendment: he would have to describe himself not as Reg Dwight, but as Elton John. My contention would be that he could describe himself as Elton John anyway because that is the name by which he is commonly known and there is clearly no attempt to deceive. 
I would be grateful if the Minister explained why it is felt appropriate to change both components rather than make the simple administrative change that gets rid of the common descriptor, which is often a nickname or a diminutive of a first name by which people are known. For example, if someone is known by everyone as Bob rather than Robert, why is he not called Bob on the ballot paper? 
On another issue, subsection (4) has a form of nomination paper, which refers to Arthur Seymour Sullivan, who wishes to be known for the purposes of the ballot paper as W. S. Gilbert. That may raise a question in the mind of the elector as to whether he writes music or words, if he is known by both names. I am slightly surprised that the commonly used forename given as an exemplar in the Bill is the less-than-commonly used forename ''W. S.'' Is that an acceptable forename? Can one just have any combination of letters or even numerals as a commonly used forename? 
''W. S.'' is not a name, but a set of initials. Are initials acceptable for the purposes of electoral law as a forename? If they are, what is the limitation? Could one have a logarithm or a logo or some other descriptor as a commonly used forename? The artist formerly known as Prince, as we famously know, once adopted a squiggle as his name. Is that squiggle now acceptable in British law as a commonly used forename? 
I am sorry if that is a reduction to the absurd of the argument, but the exemplar used raises more questions than are answered. I am slightly surprised. Perhaps the Minister can explain—or not.

Harriet Harman: The Roman alphabet must be used—so no squiggles or any letters from other languages.
Clause 25 allows candidates to use their common name on a ballot paper instead of their official name, so long as that is given to and accepted by the returning officer at nomination. The important point is  about common names and common usage, which is what I would ask hon. Members to focus on. 
If somebody is known in a particular way, letting the description by which they are commonly known in their area go on the ballot paper is fair enough. For example, they might be known by a single name—I hesitate to mention the example appearing in my briefing note, which is Sting—or a shortened version name of a forename like Bob, instead of Robert. If somebody has been known all their life as Bob, or as Tony rather than Anthony, then people will recognise them more easily as such. 
People could have a different name that they always used as their professional or stage name. That name might have nothing to do with the name on their birth certificate. I will not use any more of my examples, although we all know that Cliff Richard's name was not Cliff Richard—for those who are not old enough, his name was Harry Webb. The point is that nobody knows him as Harry Webb, except his mum. 
There are names where initials are used, which some people are known by—for example, A. A. Milne, John H. Stracey or Malcolm X. I am using provocative examples, for which I apologise.

Edward O'Hara: P. J. Proby?

Harriet Harman: P. J. Proby. There are archaeological layers here.
If hon. Members look through the parliamentary books, they will find that the name they think they know for a lot of people in the House is what they are commonly known as, but not their real name. I am sorry that we did not do that for the Committee, but hopefully we will do so promptly. A whole load of hon. Members have names different from those that they go by. For example, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is known as George, but his real name is Gideon. We might have Dave instead of David for the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). 
The point is what one is commonly known as. Putting that name on the ballot paper makes sense—why refer to something on the birth certificate? Refer to what one is commonly known as. 
If the name is not commonly known and people are just trying to be misleading, confusing, obscene or offensive to voters, returning officers will decide that in their judgment that is not on and will give notice in writing of their reasons for refusing to use a name. The clause is sensible and brings the law into line with a lot of the situation that exists at the moment. 
Question put and agreed to. 
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Offences as to false statements in nomination papers

Amendments made: No. 15, in clause 26, page 28, line 22, leave out first 'In'. 
No. 16, in clause 26, page 28, line 22, after 'papers)', insert 'is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert ''or 
(c) a certificate authorising for the purposes of rule 6A of the parliamentary elections rules the use by a candidate of a description if he knows that the candidate is standing at an election in another constituency in which the poll is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the certificate relates.''.'. 
No. 17, in clause 26, page 28, line 29, after 'election,', insert— 
'(c) at statement that he is not a candidate at an election for any other constituency the poll for which is to be held on the same day as the poll at the election to which the consent relates,'. 
No. 18, in clause 26, page 28, line 39, at end insert— 
'( ) In subsection (2) (b) at the beginning insert ''except for the purposes of subsections (1) (c) and (1A) (c),''.'.—[Mr. Devine.] 
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Kevin Brennan.] 
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 17 November at Nine o'clock.